Dover Penn ID trial - Page 10

EvilSmurf · 1st November 2005, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dan Beaird

I think the smart thing to do would be to have the defense call the witness and severely limit the lines of questioning. Isn't cross examination limited to subjects covered under direct? Maybe I'm thinking of re-direct...I'm no lawyer either, but I've seen one on TV.

I'm not a lawyer, I haven't played one on TV (I have on the stage, but that's another matter) but this is what I seem to remember.

Direct Examination - you answer questions from the lawyer who called you to the stand, the lawyer who called you can not ask leading questions (unless they are entered as a hostile witness, where the rules of cross examination apply, as Buckingham was). The standards for relevance are a bit heavier too.
Cross - The other lawyer gets to question you, the stands for relevance are pretty lax, really, under cross, we could have asked him if he's ever been convicted of grave-robbing and said it spoke towards the character of the witness.
Re-Direct - The lawyer who calls you gets to ask you more questions, with the same rules as direct examination. This usually means that something has come up in cross that was unexpected and your lawyer wants to ask another question to clear things up.

DavidJames · 1st November 2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

I was expecting him to say, "I did not have sex with that panda."

classic

tsg · 1st November 2005, 09:28 AM

This was my favorite bit:

Quote:

That was when the judge started asking him to try to explain — um, how should I phrase this? — certain gaps and problems with his testimony.

Upchurch · 1st November 2005, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

And here's Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.

The Dover Panda Trial. Now that's good marketing. Much better than Scopes Monkey Trial II: Electric Boogaloo.

I still anxiously await the 36 part made-for-TV mini-series.

CFLarsen · 1st November 2005, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The Dover Panda Trial. Now that's good marketing. Much better than Scopes Monkey Trial II: Electric Boogaloo.

I still anxiously await the 36 part made-for-TV mini-series.

...starring...?

Dr Adequate · 1st November 2005, 10:25 AM

When a judge starts grilling a witness about inconsistencies in his testimony, and asks him if he knew he was under oath --- that's quite unusual, isn't it?

Kind of like a big flashing neon sign over the man's head saying "PERJURY".

Mojo · 1st November 2005, 11:07 AM

It's certainly not good...

CFLarsen · 1st November 2005, 11:12 AM

A case of perjury per jury.

Upchurch · 1st November 2005, 01:09 PM

Of Pandas and People

I enjoyed the user reviews, pro and con.

Blondin · 1st November 2005, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

...starring...?

Well, both Spencer Tracy and Henry Fonda are out...

CFLarsen · 1st November 2005, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Blondin

Well, both Spencer Tracy and Henry Fonda are out...

James van Praagh disagrees.

Euromutt · 1st November 2005, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

A case of perjury per jury.

I dunno about perjury, for the reasons stated earlier, but I suspect a couple of school board members may be skating dangerously close to getting slapped with contempt of court charges.
And fortunately, this is a "bench trial"--no jury involved.

delphi_ote · 1st November 2005, 08:06 PM

How did they expect to get away with this lie? They're amoral and stupid.

CFLarsen · 2nd November 2005, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

How did they expect to get away with this lie? They're amoral and stupid.

Paranormal beliefs compels you to lie.

rjh01 · 2nd November 2005, 01:23 AM

I am just trying to work out what the judge will say if he says the ID people win. Am finding this task very hard. I mean how do you decide for a side that appears to be not very honest?

Darat · 2nd November 2005, 01:27 AM

I'd have to say the quality of the transcripts is superb, the prosecutors are excellent and the judge has a very dry sense of humour. Why isn't this trail televised? I'd pay-to-view it!

Ed · 2nd November 2005, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

...starring...?

Keanu Reeves and Lawrence Fishbourne.

With Carrottop as Dr. Behe

I'm tellin' ya, it's science"

Incidentially, when the Michael Jackson trial was going on, E Network (I think) did a dramatized reading of the transcripts nightly with actors playing all of he roles in a "courtroom".

Ed · 2nd November 2005, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

James van Praagh disagrees.

So does Schwartzie. What did he call it "a non-corporal co-investigator" or some such crap?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 2nd November 2005, 06:14 AM

Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience.

~~ Paul

CFLarsen · 2nd November 2005, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience.

~~ Paul

That has to be the best candidate for the Pigasus Awards....

Darat · 2nd November 2005, 06:23 AM

Perhaps the defence should have got an expert witness statement from Darwin via Schwartz confirming his death-bed conversion?

CFLarsen · 2nd November 2005, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Perhaps the defence should have got an expert witness statement from Darwin via Schwartz confirming his death-bed conversion?

Why don't they simply put God on the stand? Get the whole thing settled, once and for all?

Or find someone who speaks in tongues....handling snakes, too.

Darat · 2nd November 2005, 06:46 AM

I'm surprised when Buckingham (?) took the stand and he started to swear "by Almighty God", there wasn't a rumble of thunder and a voice from above saying "You can leave me out of this!"

Mojo · 2nd November 2005, 08:31 AM

Not only is this case going on: next Tuesday we have also the vote by the Kansas Board of Education, and 8 of the 9 members of the Dover School Board are up for re-election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110100875.html

Quote:

Around town, one billboard erected by the current school board exhorts voters to "support academic freedom."

Huh? "Academic freedom?" Aren't they the ones who want teachers to read out a statement about ID against the objections of the teachers?

Upchurch · 2nd November 2005, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Not only is this case going on: next Tuesday we have also the vote by the Kansas Board of Education,

Ooooh, I thought it was this Tuesday (i.e. yesterday). I was going to ask if anyone had heard the results. I'll go back to being patient.

delphi_ote · 2nd November 2005, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

With Carrottop as Dr. Behe

For bad science, dial down the center!

BillHoyt · 3rd November 2005, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Oh, it will definitely be interesting. One of the nice things about courts is that the rules are set up that a witness can't change the subject or wriggle out of a line of questioning that itsn't going his way, unlike a debate. Michael Behe is a brilliant debater, but I suspect he's going to get his ass handed to him, on a plate, with a side of chips.

If you read Behe's expert report, he is presenting the same-old, same-old examples of irreducible complexity, including the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. If you check out Miller's testimony and expert report (same ACLU site), Miller has already presented a pretty damning analysis that those are not, in fact, irreducibly complex, complete with PowerPoint animations and a a few citations to Science, Nature, and Cell -- apparently (something I didn't know already) blood clotting has been known not to be irreducibly complex since 1969!

So I can see the question from the attorney during cross now. "You testified that with a single factor missing, blood clotting cannot occur. You have heard Dr. Miller's testimony that dolphins are missing such a factor, and that their blood still clots. Do you disagree with Dr. Miller? Do you agree that this fact was published over thirty years ago? Are you incompetent not to know this, or were you perjuring yourself?"

Cherry-picking "ancient" science is one of their favorite games. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to keep up with all of this, but I hope you are right. The courts do present a good forum for unmasking pap, but, alas, an exceptionally poor forum to decide anything scientific. And, as much as I'd love to hear that last line from counsel, that would only get an immediate, sustained objection from opposing counsel.

BillHoyt · 3rd November 2005, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Ooooh, I thought it was this Tuesday (i.e. yesterday). I was going to ask if anyone had heard the results. I'll go back to being patient.

Have you heard any of the back-story about the Dover board of ed? It is delightful, aggravating and very telling.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 3rd November 2005, 06:59 AM

Hey Bill, good to see you posting again.

Is there a summary of the back story somewhere?

~~ Paul

BillHoyt · 3rd November 2005, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Hey Bill, good to see you posting again.

Is there a summary of the back story somewhere?

~~ Paul

Paul,

Chris Mooney covers it in his article in the premiere issue of Seed magazine. IIRC, he talks about the fundamentalist guy who launched the whole thing, then made such a mess that he had to high-tail it out of town. Considering he got the boot so badly, the court case is a sad joke.

For those who haven't yet seen it, Seed is newly re-launched. The premiere issue is graphically slick and well-written. I think it is a must-read for all skeptics. The magazine's credo tips you off: "Science is culture." This is what Discover (and others) might have been had it not been overrun by the irrational and the panderers.

Mojo · 3rd November 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

Chris Mooney covers it in his article in the premiere issue of Seed magazine. IIRC, he talks about the fundamentalist guy who launched the whole thing, then made such a mess that he had to high-tail it out of town. Considering he got the boot so badly, the court case is a sad joke.

I assume the article isn't online. Do you have the fundamentalist guy's name so we can Google him?

Moose · 3rd November 2005, 10:49 AM

I'm slowly getting caught up in the transcripts, and I caught this precious exchange early in the cross of Behe:

Quote:

Q. I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

A. Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

Q. It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

The Court: You'd have to include me, though.

Man, I had to do Jury Duty last summer. I would have loved to be on this jury rather than the case I had. Comedy gold.

BillHoyt · 3rd November 2005, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

I assume the article isn't online. Do you have the fundamentalist guy's name so we can Google him?

I tried earlier. Seed is online (www.seedmagazine.com), but seems to be members-only. I don't have my copy with me right now. Mooney has done some interviews, some of which are on line; maybe Googling him with "ID" or "evolution" might be fruitful?

Mojo · 3rd November 2005, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

I tried earlier. Seed is online (www.seedmagazine.com), but seems to be members-only. I don't have my copy with me right now. Mooney has done some interviews, some of which are on line; maybe Googling him with "ID" or "evolution" might be fruitful?

Yeah, I've already tried all sorts of combinations. The nearest I've found is an article saying "the Dover school-board member who drove the policy in question made his conservative Christian motivations clear in widely reported public statements (which he now disputes having made)" which sounds an awful lot like Buckingham to me.

BillHoyt · 3rd November 2005, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Yeah, I've already tried all sorts of combinations. The nearest I've found is an article saying "the Dover school-board member who drove the policy in question made his conservative Christian motivations clear in widely reported public statements (which he now disputes having made)" which sounds an awful lot like Buckingham to me.

That sounds familiar. All to.

petre · 3rd November 2005, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Moose

I'm slowly getting caught up in the transcripts, and I caught this precious exchange early in the cross of Behe:

Man, I had to do Jury Duty last summer. I would have loved to be on this jury rather than the case I had. Comedy gold.

The trial is being (adjucated?) only by a judge, no jury. That's why ID has practically no chance

Moose · 3rd November 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by petre

The trial is being (adjucated?) only by a judge, no jury. That's why ID has practically no chance

Ack! That would be a really good point. I guess juries are sort of hard to get on when there's no jury, huh.

Fly on the ceiling, then?

petre · 3rd November 2005, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Moose

Ack! That would be a really good point. I guess juries are sort of hard to get on when there's no jury, huh.

Fly on the ceiling, then?

I think we'll have to settle for transcripts for now

Which is why it's so irritating that some aren't fully readable. I tried using the exact software that generated it, I even downloaded a free trial of .pdf repair software. Nothing seemed up to the task of drawing out all the text.

So, what are the odds someone isn't properly setting the binary flag before using FTP?

Matilda · 4th November 2005, 07:26 AM

Is the trial meant to be finishing today? Is there a best guess of when there will be a verdict?

petre · 4th November 2005, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Matilda

Is the trial meant to be finishing today? Is there a best guess of when there will be a verdict?

Until someone more familiar with law gets here, you'll have to settle for me.

Juries are advised not to make any evaluation of evidence presented until the end of the trial and deliberations begin. I'm not so sure judges follow the same guideline. I would think the judge is very aware of exactly what aspects of the case need to be considered, and noted them as they came up.

It will take a little time for him to note the important pieces of evidence that he'll apply tests to and to write up his decision on each. I would say if the trial concludes today, the judge would have his notes together and be ready to rule next week, say Tuesday or Wednsday. A lesser case he might have ruled on late Monday, but given the likelyhood of appeal from both sides, I expect he'll try to be as complete as possible in his ruling.

Or maybe he'll be like Judge Judy, take a comercial break, then come right back with a verdict :P

1st November 2005, 09:20 AM	#362
DavidJames Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 10,493	Quote: I was expecting him to say, "I did not have sex with that panda." classic
	__________________ For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.

1st November 2005, 09:28 AM	#363
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	This was my favorite bit: Quote: That was when the judge started asking him to try to explain — um, how should I phrase this? — certain gaps and problems with his testimony.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

1st November 2005, 09:35 AM	#364
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by Mojo And here's Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony. The Dover Panda Trial. Now that's good marketing. Much better than Scopes Monkey Trial II: Electric Boogaloo. I still anxiously await the 36 part made-for-TV mini-series.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

1st November 2005, 10:25 AM	#366
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	When a judge starts grilling a witness about inconsistencies in his testimony, and asks him if he knew he was under oath --- that's quite unusual, isn't it? Kind of like a big flashing neon sign over the man's head saying "PERJURY".
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766

1st November 2005, 11:07 AM	#367
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,505	It's certainly not good...
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

1st November 2005, 09:20 AM	#361
EvilSmurf Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,552	Originally Posted by Dan Beaird I think the smart thing to do would be to have the defense call the witness and severely limit the lines of questioning. Isn't cross examination limited to subjects covered under direct? Maybe I'm thinking of re-direct...I'm no lawyer either, but I've seen one on TV. I'm not a lawyer, I haven't played one on TV (I have on the stage, but that's another matter) but this is what I seem to remember. Direct Examination - you answer questions from the lawyer who called you to the stand, the lawyer who called you can not ask leading questions (unless they are entered as a hostile witness, where the rules of cross examination apply, as Buckingham was). The standards for relevance are a bit heavier too. Cross - The other lawyer gets to question you, the stands for relevance are pretty lax, really, under cross, we could have asked him if he's ever been convicted of grave-robbing and said it spoke towards the character of the witness. Re-Direct - The lawyer who calls you gets to ask you more questions, with the same rules as direct examination. This usually means that something has come up in cross that was unexpected and your lawyer wants to ask another question to clear things up.

1st November 2005, 09:43 AM	#365
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Upchurch The Dover Panda Trial. Now that's good marketing. Much better than Scopes Monkey Trial II: Electric Boogaloo. I still anxiously await the 36 part made-for-TV mini-series. ...starring...?

1st November 2005, 11:12 AM	#368
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	A case of perjury per jury.

1st November 2005, 01:09 PM	#369
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Of Pandas and People I enjoyed the user reviews, pro and con.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

1st November 2005, 01:49 PM	#370
Blondin Muse Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northern Ontario Posts: 871	Originally Posted by CFLarsen ...starring...? Well, both Spencer Tracy and Henry Fonda are out...

1st November 2005, 02:11 PM	#371
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Blondin Well, both Spencer Tracy and Henry Fonda are out... James van Praagh disagrees.

1st November 2005, 03:23 PM	#372
Euromutt Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,092	Originally Posted by CFLarsen A case of perjury per jury. I dunno about perjury, for the reasons stated earlier, but I suspect a couple of school board members may be skating dangerously close to getting slapped with contempt of court charges. And fortunately, this is a "bench trial"--no jury involved.
	__________________ "Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo by birth, by choice

1st November 2005, 08:06 PM	#373
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	How did they expect to get away with this lie? They're amoral and stupid.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

2nd November 2005, 12:11 AM	#374
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by delphi_ote How did they expect to get away with this lie? They're amoral and stupid. Paranormal beliefs compels you to lie.

2nd November 2005, 01:23 AM	#375
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 28,328	I am just trying to work out what the judge will say if he says the ID people win. Am finding this task very hard. I mean how do you decide for a side that appears to be not very honest?

2nd November 2005, 01:27 AM	#376
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 117,767	I'd have to say the quality of the transcripts is superb, the prosecutors are excellent and the judge has a very dry sense of humour. Why isn't this trail televised? I'd pay-to-view it!
	__________________ “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

2nd November 2005, 05:48 AM	#377
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Originally Posted by CFLarsen ...starring...? Keanu Reeves and Lawrence Fishbourne. With Carrottop as Dr. Behe I'm tellin' ya, it's science" Incidentially, when the Michael Jackson trial was going on, E Network (I think) did a dramatized reading of the transcripts nightly with actors playing all of he roles in a "courtroom".
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

2nd November 2005, 05:50 AM	#378
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Originally Posted by CFLarsen James van Praagh disagrees. So does Schwartzie. What did he call it "a non-corporal co-investigator" or some such crap?
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

2nd November 2005, 06:14 AM	#379
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,141	Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

2nd November 2005, 06:17 AM	#380
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience. ~~ Paul That has to be the best candidate for the Pigasus Awards....

2nd November 2005, 06:23 AM	#381
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 117,767	Perhaps the defence should have got an expert witness statement from Darwin via Schwartz confirming his death-bed conversion?
	__________________ “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

2nd November 2005, 06:37 AM	#382
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Darat Perhaps the defence should have got an expert witness statement from Darwin via Schwartz confirming his death-bed conversion? Why don't they simply put God on the stand? Get the whole thing settled, once and for all? Or find someone who speaks in tongues....handling snakes, too.

2nd November 2005, 06:46 AM	#383
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 117,767	I'm surprised when Buckingham (?) took the stand and he started to swear "by Almighty God", there wasn't a rumble of thunder and a voice from above saying "You can leave me out of this!"
	__________________ “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

2nd November 2005, 08:31 AM	#384
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,505	Not only is this case going on: next Tuesday we have also the vote by the Kansas Board of Education, and 8 of the 9 members of the Dover School Board are up for re-election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110100875.html Quote: Around town, one billboard erected by the current school board exhorts voters to "support academic freedom." Huh? "Academic freedom?" Aren't they the ones who want teachers to read out a statement about ID against the objections of the teachers?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

2nd November 2005, 08:35 AM	#385
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by Mojo Not only is this case going on: next Tuesday we have also the vote by the Kansas Board of Education, Ooooh, I thought it was this Tuesday (i.e. yesterday). I was going to ask if anyone had heard the results. I'll go back to being patient.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

2nd November 2005, 08:49 AM	#386
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Ed With Carrottop as Dr. Behe For bad science, dial down the center!
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

3rd November 2005, 05:47 AM	#387
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by drkitten Oh, it will definitely be interesting. One of the nice things about courts is that the rules are set up that a witness can't change the subject or wriggle out of a line of questioning that itsn't going his way, unlike a debate. Michael Behe is a brilliant debater, but I suspect he's going to get his ass handed to him, on a plate, with a side of chips. If you read Behe's expert report, he is presenting the same-old, same-old examples of irreducible complexity, including the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. If you check out Miller's testimony and expert report (same ACLU site), Miller has already presented a pretty damning analysis that those are not, in fact, irreducibly complex, complete with PowerPoint animations and a a few citations to Science, Nature, and Cell -- apparently (something I didn't know already) blood clotting has been known not to be irreducibly complex since 1969! So I can see the question from the attorney during cross now. "You testified that with a single factor missing, blood clotting cannot occur. You have heard Dr. Miller's testimony that dolphins are missing such a factor, and that their blood still clots. Do you disagree with Dr. Miller? Do you agree that this fact was published over thirty years ago? Are you incompetent not to know this, or were you perjuring yourself?" Cherry-picking "ancient" science is one of their favorite games. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to keep up with all of this, but I hope you are right. The courts do present a good forum for unmasking pap, but, alas, an exceptionally poor forum to decide anything scientific. And, as much as I'd love to hear that last line from counsel, that would only get an immediate, sustained objection from opposing counsel.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

3rd November 2005, 05:49 AM	#388
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by Upchurch Ooooh, I thought it was this Tuesday (i.e. yesterday). I was going to ask if anyone had heard the results. I'll go back to being patient. Have you heard any of the back-story about the Dover board of ed? It is delightful, aggravating and very telling.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

3rd November 2005, 06:59 AM	#389
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,141	Hey Bill, good to see you posting again. Is there a summary of the back story somewhere? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

3rd November 2005, 10:28 AM	#390
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Hey Bill, good to see you posting again. Is there a summary of the back story somewhere? ~~ Paul Paul, Chris Mooney covers it in his article in the premiere issue of Seed magazine. IIRC, he talks about the fundamentalist guy who launched the whole thing, then made such a mess that he had to high-tail it out of town. Considering he got the boot so badly, the court case is a sad joke. For those who haven't yet seen it, Seed is newly re-launched. The premiere issue is graphically slick and well-written. I think it is a must-read for all skeptics. The magazine's credo tips you off: "Science is culture." This is what Discover (and others) might have been had it not been overrun by the irrational and the panderers.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

3rd November 2005, 10:47 AM	#391
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,505	Originally Posted by BillHoyt Chris Mooney covers it in his article in the premiere issue of Seed magazine. IIRC, he talks about the fundamentalist guy who launched the whole thing, then made such a mess that he had to high-tail it out of town. Considering he got the boot so badly, the court case is a sad joke. I assume the article isn't online. Do you have the fundamentalist guy's name so we can Google him?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

3rd November 2005, 10:49 AM	#392
Moose Self-Propelled Road Hazard Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 418	I'm slowly getting caught up in the transcripts, and I caught this precious exchange early in the cross of Behe: Quote: Q. I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct? A. Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful. Q. It would make this exchange go much more quickly. The Court: You'd have to include me, though. Man, I had to do Jury Duty last summer. I would have loved to be on this jury rather than the case I had. Comedy gold.

3rd November 2005, 11:00 AM	#393
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by Mojo I assume the article isn't online. Do you have the fundamentalist guy's name so we can Google him? I tried earlier. Seed is online (www.seedmagazine.com), but seems to be members-only. I don't have my copy with me right now. Mooney has done some interviews, some of which are on line; maybe Googling him with "ID" or "evolution" might be fruitful?
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

3rd November 2005, 11:12 AM	#394
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,505	Originally Posted by BillHoyt I tried earlier. Seed is online (www.seedmagazine.com), but seems to be members-only. I don't have my copy with me right now. Mooney has done some interviews, some of which are on line; maybe Googling him with "ID" or "evolution" might be fruitful? Yeah, I've already tried all sorts of combinations. The nearest I've found is an article saying "the Dover school-board member who drove the policy in question made his conservative Christian motivations clear in widely reported public statements (which he now disputes having made)" which sounds an awful lot like Buckingham to me.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

3rd November 2005, 11:15 AM	#395
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by Mojo Yeah, I've already tried all sorts of combinations. The nearest I've found is an article saying "the Dover school-board member who drove the policy in question made his conservative Christian motivations clear in widely reported public statements (which he now disputes having made)" which sounds an awful lot like Buckingham to me. That sounds familiar. All to.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758